The story of our era in a single image

Some Tea Party idiot posted a picture of herself on Twitter with gun, Bible and flag in celebration of Hobby Lobby’s victory for liberty. Then ‘something amazing happened.’

Can’t figure out who actually produced this pitch-perfect meme, but when a historian someday writes the definitive history of America in the first quarter of the 21st Century, this will appear on the cover.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

396 comments on “The story of our era in a single image”

Tuttabella tried to make a point below about this being a matter of personality. Some people, she (he?) says, are just more “showy,” while others are more reserved, and apparently I’m making too big of a deal about the folks who are just more “showy.” If only it were so simple as that.

The truth is that tone matters. It matters a lot. In a perfect world, maybe it wouldn’t. Maybe our debates would always be firmly rooted in logos and the cold glare of inarguable fact, but if that’s not a world of living, breathing, feeling human beings. We are emotional organisms, for worse but also for the better. Both sides use emotion, no doubt about it. I can give a list of concessions on that a mile long. But it would only serve to delay what is my inevitable and assuredly indisputable point: American conservatism has been hijacked by extremely crazy people, and these people are threatening to upend not only the progress we’ve made as a nation over the last century, but also some of the better virtues of conservative politics, too.

When John Cornyn took a few minutes to swat aside the non-challenge of Steve Stockman in the last campaign, he made this very salient point. The Ted Cruz fans that wanted Cornyn out just didn’t get it. They were and are angry at Cornyn for turning on Cruz in his debt-ceiling fight. Rather than understanding this to be the waste of time that it was, Cornyn’s haters believe he turned into the dreaded “RINO”–their term for anybody who momentarily reveals a smidgen of intelligence or basic decency.

Cornyn told Texas Monthly that the only difference between him and Ted Cruz is a matter of strategy, not policy. Cornyn is as conservative as they come. But because his brain weighs more than his genitals, he was able to accurately perceive the stupidity of fooling around with the debt ceiling, and indeed most Republicans know it’s stupid. But they can’t say that because the God, Guns, and American Flags wing of the party is not a thinking movement of individuals.

This is what happens when this militant posture takes over. The loudmouths think they win because they’re louder than everybody else

Wow! Such and enlightening, focused point on conservatism. Even though you said your point is indisputable or some such nonsense, I would sum it up as bullshit from a liberal.

There is no TEA Party organization of any size to sway an election. Some claim to be and endorse candidates but it means nothing. This is the part you liberals don’t get.

Ted Cruz’ credentials and education are stellar, there is no doubt about that. He is smart and ambitious and knows how to make a point. I am a participant in the TEA Party but voted Cornyn so your theory goes out the window.

In 2010 and no doubt in 2014 more conservatives will be elected and probably will take the senate. What you need to do is figure out why your team is losing so many seats while conservatives are gaining so many. Could it be that you are out of sync with America? Yup!

Or maybe the combo of 1) midterm election 2) gerrymandering 3) this cycle the Dems have more seats to defend in the Senate (21 vs 14) 4) several key Dem retirements (Harkin, Baucus) that make previously safe seats vulnerable.

There’s an unusually strong consensus in the chattering classes that 2014 will favor the GOP, but 2016 will not.

Some crazy people took over the federal government afew decades ago, and it has only gotten worse. Now we are to the point of having far left extremists running thing, the really crazy people. We get a Marxist president that appoints self-avowed communists to positions of power. Then we have the far lext extremisrs taht support such things, or don’t even bat an eye over it. A president that openly says a specific group of people would be allowed to go along for the ride, but they have to sit in the back. Where have we heard that before?

Just a big shout out to the “gay folks just need to shut up and quit complaining” brigade and their gun totin’ anti-gay marriage mascot pictured above:

U.S. Navy veteran Madelynn Taylor filed a civil rights suit against the Idaho Division of Veterans Services yesterday, after her request to be buried in the state’s vet cemetery with her late wife was denied. Taylor married Jean, who died in 2012, in California in 2008.

According to the Associated Press, Taylor, 74, didn’t even think it would be a problem to be buried with Jean, because federal veterans cemeteries allow gay couples to be buried together. The vet cemetery in Idaho is operated by the state, however, and it won’t recognize her marriage.

So yeah, your “states get to be as discriminatory and as bigoted as they want because freedom” position just generally sucks, but hey, you aren’t gay, so who the f&%k cares?

Easy, she can be buried with the ashes of her spouse, which she keeps at home, in a federal cemetery or in a private cemetery. You didn’t take into account whether or not I agree with the state’s position, which I do not, but that is the authority of the state to decide. As mentioned here by people like John Galt, the people of the state can elect different representatives and change things. That is their business.

“…the people of the state can elect different representatives and change things.”
…Or sue the state, which is her plan of action.
Sternn, your agreement/disagreement with the state’s position has nothing to do with my point, which was that you were (again) being willfully obtuse. You had further information on the matter, but instead of simply sharing it (maybe because it was “inconvenient”), you chose to laconically imply that HT was wrong. He wasn’t.

Yes Stern…your half-hearted “I do not support this position” runs a weak counter to supporting the:

…authority of the state to decide to be discriminatory against gay folks wanting to be buried together

…and the authority of the state to refuse to recognize gay marriage

…and the ruling in Loving v. Virginia was flawed and Virginia should have been allowed to refuse to recognize inter-racial marriage

…and the authority of the State of Texas to refuse to recognize interracial marriage

…and the authority of the State of Texas to not allow a person to hold state office unless he/she professes a belief in a supreme being

…and the right of a Denny’s to refuse service to Black people

…and the right of Bank of America to deny mortgage loans to women

When the core of my socio/political belief system comes to the aid of scoundrels and allows for the easy disadvantaging of already disadvantaged groups, it might be time for me the rethink my socio/political beliefs.

Maybe I would realize that I do not have to go whole-hog in a political philosophy when that philosophy leads to some unpleasant ends, and maybe if I went half-hog or three quarters-hog, I might be able to balance my political beliefs with some sense of rationality.

Or…hey, I’m not gay, I’m not a woman, I’m generally not disadvantaged, so what do I care? If these things are not bothering me, they should not really bother anyone. Besides, I have to think less and make fewer hard decisions if I just stick with a dogmatic political position.

Ah…but Tutt…some of use use numbers to shine light on facts….some others use words to shield issues from the light and utilize semantic tap dances to play games with issues that affect people’s lives.

Stern’s State worker: Excuse me, Ms. Candidate for Texas Tumbleweed Commissioner, before we accept your application to run for office, we have a few questions for you to determine if you are eligible to run for office.

Stern’s State worker: Are you a Texas resident?

Candidate: Yes, I am.

Stern’s State worker: Thank you. Now, our State Constitution expressly forbids the use of a Religious Test to determine if you are eligible for state office, so I just need to know if you believe in a Supreme Being before I can approve your application.

Candidate: Uh…that certainly seems like a religious test.

Stern’s State worker: No, no, not at all. See, I didn’t even use the word “religion” in my question. I just need to know if you believe in a Supreme Being. I don’t need to know anything about religion.

Candidate: Isn’t belief in a Supreme Being kind of the definition of religion?

Stern’s Authoritative State worker: Sure, if you are the type to look in a dictionary, but since you can belong to a religion that does not believe in a Supreme Being, which by the way would also cause me to deny your application, this clearly is not a religious test.

Candidate: Huh?

Stern’s State worker: It is all very simple, I don’t need to know anything about religion, just that you believe in a Supreme Being.

Candidate: So, an atheist would not be allowed to run for office?

Stern’s State worker: Oh, sure they would. We love atheists, and they can run for office as long as they believe in a Supreme Being.

Candidate: Huh? That seems kind of discriminatory.

Stern’s State worker: No, not at all. If we had a Religious Test, that would be discriminatory. We just need to know that you believe in a Supreme Being. Since we say right up front that there cannot be a Religious Test to determine eligibility, the fact that we require you to believe in a Supreme Being is by definition, not a Religious Test because we say that a Religious Test cannot be used.

Homer, you seem like you’re getting bitter like Texan. Maybe you should take a few days off of here to enjoy your new baby. Seriously, you are going off the charts hateful because you want everyone to believe like you do. Ain’t going to happen buddy. Ever. That is life.

Yes, HT, I do supportn your right to choose whom you will allow into yourn home or onto your property. I support your right to choose where you will or will not buy groceries. I support your right to choose what gas station you will do business with, what bank you will do business with, what mechanic you will do business with. I support your right to discriminate for any reason, or no reason at all. And you don’t want that freedom. Or maybe you want it for yourself but not others?

What if somebody wants to be buried in that cemetery but they have not served in the armed forces? Do you think tyhat should be allowed, or do you think the state has a right to discriminate?

Stern’s State worker: Thank you. Now, our State Constitution expressly forbids the use of a Religious Test to determine if you are eligible for state office, so I just need to know if you believe in a Supreme Being before I can approve your application.

Candidate: Why yes, I believe in myself and I am quite a supreme being.

Stern’s State worker: Thank you, you pass. Have a nice day and good luck.

So…Stern…you want folks to either lie or somehow have the knowledge to say the “magic” words that somehow fit your definition of things in the Stern Dictionary where words don’t mean what the really mean.

I promise…it will not physically hurt or even cause the playing card walls of your political philosophy to come crashing down to just say, “Yeah, that is kind of stupid. It clearly is a religious test, and those folks were just wrong to put that in there”.

In fact, it might even make you feel better to let a little sunshine in buddy.

HT, I must agree with Kabuzz here. Spending time with your newborn son and his mom is more important than winning a war of words with Captain Sternn. When you are on your deathbed, i doubt you will regret not having spent more time arguing with Cap. If what you seek is to make the world a better places for gays, VOTE. That will make a bigger difference than all this pointless bickering.

Stern…I’m now wondering if you understand the meaning of commonly used words in the English language.

Saying you cannot be a neo-conservative because you were never a liberal would suggest you cannot be a member of a Protestant religion because you never personally protested against the Catholic Church.

Stern….I really do generally like to believe better of you, but then you rise to new lows of obfuscation. It is just kind of sad. It actually makes me wonder if you do not know things or if you are intentionally hiding things.

I appreciate you citing Merriam Webster…but it seems as though you didn’t exactly copy and paste far enough because just below what you wrote…there is this:

Merriam-Webster. 2. a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Or we could go with Britannica:
neoconservatism, variant of the political ideology of conservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets. Neoconservatism arose in the United States in the 1970s among intellectuals who shared a dislike of communism and a disdain for the counterculture of the 1960s, especially its political radicalism and its animus against authority, custom, and tradition.

I’m slowly coming to the realization that your view of the world is somewhat narrow in focus, and if it doesn’t fit what you think should fit…it doesn’t exist.

Um, HT, wouldn’t that make you a neo-conservative as well? Or do you think we should have surrendered to Japan and/or Germany? You can paint with such a broad brush that you paint everybody.

Neo means new, a new conservative, somebody that was not a conservative becomes a conservative, a new conservative. I have always held conservative views since I understood what my political views were.

If the RWNJs want to shoot themselves in the feet right on top of the old wounds from 2012, I certainly wouldn’t try to stop them. But I am quite astounded by such inability to learn from past mistakes.

Nice find JG, and I’m always glad to read articles from people who get real. People can bloviate about bootstraps and class warfare and makers/takers and American exceptionalism and anything else on the talking points list, but when you look at history, too large a wealth gap destabilizes societies. It happens again and again and again, and I see no reason why American would be the first to buck that long trend if we continue on that path.

I really don’t see the socialists picking up weapons and going to steal from the rich. Maybe somebody like Anse will, if he can find the courage, because according to his comments below, the only reason he is not doing it right this moment is because he is afraid to do it.

Both pictures are provocations, and so it is inevitable that they will engender commentary. I don’t go along with the “you-paid-attention-so-therefore-she-wins” mentality that sums up the Internet Troll’s Philosophy, but a pic like this is most definitely troll-ish in both its connotations and intention. What makes it pathetic is that nobody really believes this young lady is gonna shoot anybody. People wield guns like this precisely because they don’t have the stones to actually commit such an act of violence. Of course that’s not true of the Muslim suicide bomber on the right. Unlike our American saber-rattlers, she was no mere poser.

Now why would you think people here in the U.S., as in the lady in the picture with the U.S. F;ag, would go out and commit acts of terror or crime? Your claim is that such people are not brave enough to do so? That speaks volumes about your view of the world, that you do not commit acts of terrorism or crime because you are not brave enough.

I think that for most of us, including those of us that support the 2nd amendment and the intent behind it, simply do not have any desire to commit acts of terrorism or crime. We believe such acts are wrong, but it has nothing to do with a lack of courage. We would act in derfense of self, of others, of property, of state and of nation, and hope that we are never put in a position of doing even that.

The picture on the left, on its own, probably doesn’t even get on to my radar screen. Guns and Bibles, whatever floats your boat. The juxtaposition of pictures, however, that totally cracks me up. Outstanding troll, that.

Sternn, that’s precisely my point. Nobody believes she’s going to point that thing at anybody. Which is what makes the image so preposterous. The aspiration of swagger, a signifier of some kind of seriousness that supposedly the rest of us who don’t tote guns or Bibles don’t have. Am I to be regarded as a coward because I don’t even own a gun? Am I less of a man because I’m not brave enough to stand in front of a camera holding the symbols of American jingoism? Is this what makes rightwingers aroused? Apparently it is.

I know this means nothing to you wackjobs, but I think about my uncle, my grandmother’s brother-in-law. He was a small man, about 5′ 6″ or so. Generally quiet, but with a disarming sense of ironic humor. He did not carry a gun and though he may have owned one, there was no evidence of it anywhere in his home. I believe he was a Christian, since most members of my family are, but not once did I ever hear the man discuss it. You could have known him for days or weeks or years and never know that he was a Marine injured at Guadalcanal, and fought on Iwo Jima; he stood at the bottom of that hill as that flag was pushed up into place. He saw it go up. He was a true American hero. But like so many of his generation, he had a kind of class and innate decency that did not require him to boast about it. He didn’t keep his service a secret, and was full of stories about the war–many of them funny. He talked about being injured but he never talked about the pain that lead him to have several back surgeries throughout his adult life.

My uncle would not have ever, in a million years, posed for a picture like that.

Anse, the world is broken down into the showy types and the unassuming ones. Not everyone who supports second amendment rights preens and poses like the ladies in the photos. Cap is a perfect example of a man who is a firm supporter of the right to bear arms, yet he is mild-mannered and laid back, nothing like the pistol-twirling, loudmouth you seem to think he is.

The reason you see and hear so much about the loudmouth, showy types is because they’re loudmouths and showy. Makes sense, doesn’t it? You just can’t assume everyone is like that.

The showy versus unassuming applies to the world in general. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with insecurity or having something to prove. I happen to be a modest dresser and don’t like to draw attention to myself. Other ladies prefer to dress provocatively. To each her own. It’s all a matter of personal style.

I asked you twice in case you didn’t see the first time I posted the question. You have “conveniently” avoided the question. I ask you for the third time: Are you Bac si, with whom I had a similar conversation on chron.com?

“Concealed, trained to use them sparingly, and only in emergencies.”
****************************
Owl, that pretty much sums up the approach of second amendment supporters as well, but you guys insist on portraying them as trigger-happy, Wild West types.

Bubba, I left it out intentionally and earnestly, not “conveniently,” which implies sneakiness on my part. True, many are not professional law enforcement or military personnel, nor do they claim to be, but they do have the appropriate training for personal self-defense.

Tutt wrote: Owl, that pretty much sums up the approach of second amendment supporters as well, but you guys insist on portraying them as trigger-happy, Wild West types.

Actually, that is not an accurate statement. When the 2nd amendment types start carrying weapons incidences of threatening people with those firearms increases, armed drivers are more likely to act out in road rage incidences, and in stand your ground states homicide rates increase about 8%.

Well, that was a waste of time, Turtles. The claim is that homicides increased, but that it was not possible to know if those were justifiable homicides or not. So, in conclusion after reading that paper, the increase was in justifiable homicides and that means criminals were stopped. Now why would you oppose stopping criminals?

No, wait, Rucas said Tuttabella is CaptSernn, or was it CaptSternn is Tuttabella, or is Dan Aactually Bart? Or was Dan GOPLifer? Maybe Bubba is Owl, or is Owl actually Bubba? Wait, John Galt is HT, or is OV John Galt?

With a pretty interesting round of discussions, the irony is dripping down the walls. Assuming the point of the post is the fear of mixing religion with government, we have lots of folks arguing for exactly that.

I won’t speak for others here, but for me, I’m not worried about either of these young women shooting me, nor am I too concerned that the nice woman on the left is going to beat me about the head with her Bible.

I am more concerned, however, that her religious beliefs are becoming more pronounced in the political sphere and in gov’t.

In the posts below, we have folks arguing that it is OK that Texas prohibits anyone seeking public office unless they profess a belief in a supreme being. We are even seeing a semantic tap dance to argue that such a requirement is not a religious test.

Even were it a religious test, in the posts below, we have folks arguing that states should have the right to implement a religious test and for states to have the ability to prohibit the recognition of inter-racial (and gay) marriages.

No one fears idiots posting pictures on the internet.

Folks fear that these folks vote for folks who happily restrict the rights and privileges of others.

I don’t actually think this is true, Homer. I think US law and tradition has been entirely consumed with Judeo-Christian religious practice since before the country was founded. Blue laws, alcohol laws, legal holidays, displays of the 10 commandments, public prayer, anti-evolution, etc. This is changing as the country becomes more diverse from a religious perspective and these laws are slowly disappearing (if only Specs were open Sundays). This is leading to an understandable reaction from those who are the most fundamentally religious. The trends, though, are unmistakable and unstoppable.

JG…growing up in Texas, I had the lunacy of blue laws and all the things you mentioned, and undoubtedly, those things are changing.

However, long gone are the fiscal conservative Republicans of the 70s (and even into the 80s) who would have laughed at someone telling them they should be worried about who a gay person should marry or worried that someone might be a Muslim from Kenya.

The long ingrained mixing of religion, politics, and life (e.g., blue laws) are undoubtedly going away, but now we have folks who are going out of their way to impose their religious views (e.g., gay marriage, abortion).

While at some point these folks are going to get old and die or they will simply be overwhelmed by the volume of young folks who do not believe as they do, right now, they are causing problems for lots of folks.

Stern, I might also note that something like 70% of folks who are non-religious identify as pro-choice compared to about 35% of religious folks in the US, so I would venture to say that religion plays at least a tiny, tiny part in it.

Very similar to slavery, denying a human being’s humanity, denying them basic human rights and treating as nothing more than property. A lot of people see it that way. That’s why a lot of people compare the Dred Scott case to Roe vs Wade.

Many people will base it on their religious beliefs, but that isn’t so bad unless you really, really hate the founding principles of this state and nation. The U.S. Constitution is not a religious document, but it was written and ratified by very religious men based on their idea of God given rights, including the right to life.

They would have laughed at this issue of gay marriage in the ’70s because it never, ever would have occurred to them. I agree that there were (and are) many fiscal conservatives on the right who are not concerned with social issues, but for most of them, I suspect they simply never gave a thought to the traditional social order being challenged in these ways. Chris has written about the Baptist church originally being in favor of abortion before it became seen as a bedrock left vs. right issue (How Protestant Evangelicals shifted their abortion stance, March 29).

Yes, it was written by “very religious men” like James Madison, who was probably a Deist but wrote so little on religious matters that it is not clear what he believed. Franklin, who was a Deist too, suggested that they begin each day’s deliberations with a prayer. Others protested against this and it was never voted on. None of the first half-dozen presidents would be considered a “true” Christian today.

John, there is no “Baptist Church”, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of Baptist Churches. Each operates as an individual entity. There are dozens of Baptist Conventions that a Baptist Church may decide to join, but no Baptist Church is required to join all or even any.

My Baptist Church has a committee (well, lots and lots of them to be honest) that reviews each convention’s platform every year, then makes recommendations as to which they think the church should join or withdraw from, and the congregation votes on those recommendations.

Are there some Baptists that are pro-choice (pro-abortion as HT might say since he calls the anti-abortion and pro-life side “anti-choice”)? I have no doubt there are, and some Catholics, Methodists, etc.. Most are not and never have been.

Cap, JG, the Founders and Framers were above all products of the Age of Enlightenment, particularly the empiricist thinkers of that era. They were equally products of the Scientific Revolution, and deeply influenced by the clockwork nature of the universe evinced by Newtonian Mechanics. A significant fraction of them, while nominally members of mainstream churches, had considerable trouble reconciling their faith with their understanding of the workings of the universe. Jefferson was perhaps most famous in this respect, but he was hardly alone.

Of course, we’ve come a long way since Newton. General and special relativity, quantum mechanics, entanglement, chaos theory, fractal mathematics, the big bang, black holes, pulsars, white fountains, string theory, etc., etc. Wonders unceasing with no prospect of an end. It turns out the Creation is ever so much more intriguing than the tidy clockwork envisioned by Kepler, Newton and Kelvin. One can’t help but wonder what effect knowledge of today’s science would have had on the faith of a man like Jefferson.

Misleading, Sternn. Virtually all public figures then were nominally some religion or other, but many were not religious at all. Franklin is listed as Episcopalian as is Madison. Neither were particularly religious. Jefferson was also listed as Episcopalian, except he apparently didn’t believe that Jesus was the son of God. Historians have debated for two centuries the religious leanings of Washington, because the messages in his writing were mixed.

Two points from this:
1. Get your data from sources in addition to “adherents.com” and
2. Contrast this to the religiousness of Rick Perry or Rick Santorum today.

Let’s look at the first presidents:
Washington – Nominally Anglican/Episcopalian. Attended church, but rarely took communion. When admonished for this by a priest, he stopped going on communion Sundays. His writings are sprinkled with references to “providence” which was a common Deist term.

Adams – Probably the most conventionally Christian of the bunch, but he too had lots of Deist influences.

Jefferson – Literally excised with a razor references to the divinity of Jesus from his copy of the Bible.

Madison – Wrote literally nothing about his religious beliefs amongst the thousands of pages of personal correspondence and official papers.

Monroe – Wrote even less about religion. Attended church (Episcopalian) occasionally, but never took communion.

JQ Adams – Unitarian universalist.

The point is not that the Founders were not spiritual or were not, at some level, Christians. But to argue that they were the contemporary equivalent of today’s evangelicals or that this country’s founding documents are based explicitly on Christian thoughts, which some do, is absurd.

That you readily equate abortion with robbing and murder highlights your problem.

Conservative estimates have 20% to 30% of women born in the 70s and 80s will have an abortion in their lives. Certainly, the vast majority of women will know someone who had an abortion at some point in their lives.

You get to convince these folks that what they or their friends did was murder, when almost no one agrees with you on this issue. I’m sure you feel this is your noble fight, akin to the abolitionists, but history is just not going to be on your side.

The silence on in vitro fertilization and miscarriages suggests to folks that the issue is the women seeking the abortion, not the fertilized egg itself. That may not be the real intention, but it is the unmistakable perception.

HT, it is the killing of an innocent human being for convenience. I do believe in putting up unuesed embyos for adoption, that simply throwing them out is killing innocent people. But as an anti-choice person, I doubt you will ever want to face the reality.

Obj…we’ve been around this bend a few times. It is clear that you are not going to change your opinion of the facts here. However, the numbers simply do not back you up.

Since about 1999, the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” identification has generally stayed within a few points of one another. However, those terms are essentially meaningless.

My wife would readily and quickly identify as pro-life, but she greatly favors a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. I think lots and lots of folks would fall along that mindset. Heck, on a good day, you could probably get Owl and me to agree we are pro-life.

In general, just about everyone is pro-life. What you are looking for is anti-choice, and the polling just doesn’t back you up.

So, what does pro-life mean? If you are saying that a solid majority of people now lean to pro-life, we are going to have to explain how the same polling shows that only 25% wanted abortion laws to be stricter and 61% believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

Clearly, being pro-life doesn’t necessarily mean you want to stop other people from having access to an abortion.

Why, it is almost as though some people realize that their personal values and beliefs maybe shouldn’t be mandated by law to apply to people who have different personal values and beliefs. Go figure.

And HT starts in again … if you think it is wrong to own black people as slaves, you are just anti-choice. If you think it is wrong for a man to rape a woman, you are just anti-choice. If you think it is wrong for a husband to beat his wife, you are just anti-choice. If you think it is wrong to kill your neighbors because of their taste in music, you are just anti-choice.

Sio that makes you pro-abortion or anti-life, I will be pro-choice and allow you to decide which one it is.

Buzz…I would think most folks would understand pro-life and pro-choice in today’s vernacular, however, it certainly seems that pro-life folks are not necessarily in favor of prohibiting other people’s right to have an abortion.

There seems to be a whole lot of folks who are personally pro-life but pro-choice when it comes to other people. Those folks are more than welcome on my side of the argument.

Stern…to your very tired and very un-opinion changing position of abortion is the same as slavery, you too seem to struggle with definitions.

I think you could easily call the vast majority of folks “anti-abortion”. If there is an abortion happening, something went wrong along the way, and most folks would like to improve education and access to birth control so that there are fewer abortions.

We want fewer abortions so it is hard to call us “pro-abortion”.

We are in favor of choice, and you are against women having the choice. We are in favor of life, and you are in favor of life.

The real difference is in the choice, hence pro-choice and anti-choice.

My wife is certainly pro-life, but she believes other women should make choices for themselves. She is not “anti-choice”. Your side needs people to be “anti-choice” so that you can outlaw abortions.

Not at all. The choice is made before conception. After conception a new human life has begun, the choice has been made. Then it becomes a question of respecting the rights of that person or treating that person as property, denying basic human rights. So that makes you anti-life or pro-abortion.

I don’t know Stern, it certainly seems as though lots of folks are making the choice after conception.

There simply are not enough people who agree with you that a fertilized egg is a person and thus the morning after pill is equivalent to murder. I dare say you will never have enough people on that side of the argument.

We are all awaiting your righteous indignation, protests, and proposed legislation regarding the mass murder/spree killings that occur with in vitro fertilization.

We are also looking for the very loud screams for more funding and research into the epidemic that is killing 25% of fertilized eggs via miscarriage.

There is no telling home many more 14 to 19 week old fetuses are aborted because you folks fight the morning after pills and easy access to early pregnancy abortion.

Of course, where there is no difference in your head between using the morning after pill and killing a two year old, then I guess you have to do what you have to do.

People make choices to rob other people, to assault people, to murder people. Are you pro-choice and claim it is their right to do so and anybody that says otherwise is simply anti-choice? That is how you come across with your anti-choice garbage.

Most people were probably not in favor of abolishing slavery nor granting blacks equal rights, but that is why we have a nation established to protect individual liberty and rights against the tyranny of the majority, the individual being the ultimate minority.

Conservative estimates have 20% to 30% of women born in the 70s and 80s will have an abortion in their lives. Certainly, the vast majority of women will know someone who had an abortion at some point in their lives.

You get to convince these folks that what they or their friends did was murder, when almost no one agrees with you on this issue. I’m sure you feel this is your noble fight, akin to the abolitionists, but history is just not going to be on your side.

The silence on in vitro fertilization and miscarriages suggests to folks that the issue is the women seeking the abortion, not the fertilized egg itself. That may not be the real intention, but it is the unmistakable perception.

It is interesting that the left seems to conflate any expression of religion in our society with the theocracies of the Middle East. Never mind that separation of church and state has been on the increase in western civilization for, oh, roughly the last 1,000 years or so. (If memory serves, since the Concordat of Worms in 1122.) Never mind that Islam was *founded* as a theocracy. Nope, it’s all same-same. And, of course, never mind that the various atheistic communist regimes of the 20th century killed *tens of millions* of their own citizens. Nope, never mind all that. Religion is just bad, bad, bad.

How is holding a semi automatic refile with a Bible in your hand an “expression of religion” exactly? Is this Christian teaching? Don’t remember that part from Sunday school but then again I didn’t grow up in Texas where guns seem to be inter woven into everything. It is really strange and suggests some deeper issues frankly.

Yes, Tex, that’s me. If Chris is willing to hang it all out there, I figure I ought to reciprocate. And thank you, that’s my fav straw hat. (Hecho in Mexico, no less. No doubt if everybody would just buy Mexican hats, our border crisis would evaporate.)

Uh, Tex, which part of “impeding the free exercise of” are you having trouble with?

Let me lay this out for you using small, simple words. I’ll try to break it to you gently. Our system government is based on Lockean philosophy, and Lockean philosophy is in turn laid out on the foundation of the sovereign individual, who owes fealty and allegiance only to his or her Creator. In Locke’s view of the world, the proper chain of authority starts with the Creator, whom the individual serves, and to whom government is subservient: God –> the individual –> government. See? Simple.

Now, I’m sure the above is confusing to you, not to mention vexing. I’m sure you’d much rather have the government be able to order individuals around, even to point of having them buy abortifacients for others, regardless of what their religious leaning might be. Unfortunately for you, those pesky dead white guys wrote this little document called the Constitution, and even in the age of the pen and phone, jurists are prone to pay some minimal degree of attention to it. But don’t worry! That same document spells out the process for *amendment*! So have at it! Knock your lights out!

Like I said, I was trying to lay it out gently. Sometimes historical fact is just so darn inconvenient. Amend away!

Then again, for those who want to leave God out of the picture, there’s always the Libertarian mindset, in which the individual is supreme, and the state subservient: The individual –> the state. See? No pesky, antediluvian (er, poor word choice! perhaps, “mythological”?) God to contend with. The cool thing about libertarians is that they are pretty cool with everybody else, so long as nobody is mean and tries to take their stuff.

Although I have some trouble with the “anything goes between consenting adults” aspects of Libertarianism, I find such notions far preferable to the statist dreams of our “progressive” friends, who would have every aspect of our lives guided by faceless, benevolent, all-knowing experts ensconced in some sterile, soulless, high temple of social justice. (I have this picture in my head of the progressives’ ideal bureaucrat consisting of some freak genetic cross between the pulsing-veined, big-headed aliens of the original Star Trek’s “The Menagerie,” and the android, Data, from Star Trek Next Generation. Yikes!)

If the followers of each respective school of magical thinking could get over their wildly imaginative doctrine and realize how much they have in common, we secular non-theists would be seriously screwed. As it stands, we can only hope to dodge the crossfire while the nuts blow each other into oblivion. It would help if they’d find a godforsaken corner of the globe to settle their scores and leave us out of it.

You know, Anse, speaking of the company you keep, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot were all devout “secular non-theists,” too. How many notches in their collective belts? 70 million? 80 million? All the non-secular theists are a bunch of dilettantes in comparison.

I bet the atheists of the 20th century have not murdered a fraction of all those in just the Christian religion alone. We don’t have that far back to go with atheism because it’s a relatively recent phenomenon. But we all know those guys were not really atheists, anyway. They replaced religion with their own cults of personality. They enforced a kind of state religion–just like Christian theocrats wish to do.

I am sincerely bummed that my long time friend had his comment removed.

While my friend’s views do not necessarily reflect the mainstream conservative perspective, his views represent a pretty dark, unpleasant, and not inconsequentially small portion of the electorate, and all too often, politicians happily pander to that portion of the electorate.

More light shining on those dark places will make it harder for our more rational folks to decide that they want to be on the dark side of some of those issues.

I do wonder, if there is nothing wrong about being born gay, why should the question cause offense? I guess it has to do with the intent behind the question, and the fact that it’s a very personal question, not something harmless like asking the color of a baby’s eyes, and also the fact that we are all still in awe of the birth of this particular baby — this type of question just besmirches the miracle of his birth.

Tutt…I’m with you, but given everything we know, I think it would be a stretch to say that his inquiry did not have some less than pleasant intent.

To your larger point, I think you know the answer. For lots of folks in the US, being gay is viewed negatively.

Buzz will happily point out that gay folks are an abomination and he could never do anything that would support a gay person in a homosexual relationship. Buzz is not alone in that sentiment. Some elected officials will struggle to go five minutes into a discussion of homosexuality without equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia.

He probably is twice as likely to be left handed as he is to be gay, but we can’t tell which is his dominant hand or his sexuality at this point.

Dan, don’t mean to offend here, but bringing in somebody’s family or loved one to try to score a point in a discussion against that person is wrong. It really rubs my fur the wrong way when Owl or Rucas or even Turtles try to use Tutt or go whining to her because they don’t like what I am saying.

Obama accused rural people who lost jobs of being bitter and clinging to guns and religion. The woman on the left may have been having fun with that statement by including the gun and Bible. The relaxed smile doesn’t indicate bitterness or intention to harm anyone. Her photo was in response to others teasing her about her views.

The person who combined images was also amusing. Why not leave it at that?

Do some of you really not comprehend the difference between the two images? I mean honestly see no difference at all? If that is the case then I have no idea what to say. Otherwise y’all are just trolling.

I understand that objv but given the obvious similarity between her picture and the pictures we have all seen of the suicide bombers over the past years, she would have to be brain dead not to see that many, many people would take her “joke” in the wrong way. ESPECIALLY people in Israel.

Honestly, john75, I would not have made any kind of connection with the first woman and terrorism if I hadn’t seen the two images combined. Do you seriously think that people in Israel fear suicide bombings by members of the tea party?

Obj…I think the issue is that some here in the US might want a little more of their religion in their gov’t, and that is something of a scary thought.

For instance:
“Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

Read that last clause slowly…that is a pretty scary statement.

You could guess that maybe that was from some fringe group rather than in the Texas constitution.

Want to guess how many state-wide office holders we have who would profess to not believing in a Supreme Being?

Heck…it seems like you even have to believe in a specific Supreme being at times. For instance, we had some true patriots really wanting to bounce Rep. Joe Straus as Texas House Speaker, so they campaign for a “true Christian leader”. “We elected a house with Christian, conservative values. We now want a true Christian, conservative running it”

Straus is Jewish.

So yeah…at times, these folks can cause some pretty serious threats to the US and the Constitution.

Well…your sister would appreciate the Texas constitution, while it doesn’t specifically call for Christians…it is Texas, and you have to believe in something if you want to get elected…so I think the odds are in their favor.

Of course, I guess the Flying Spaghetti Monster would qualify as a Supreme Being.

Buzz….I don’t say this lightly given the nonsense you post from time to time, but that has to be the nuttiest response you have ever made.

Your folks have actually written it into the State’s constitution that elected officials must believe as they do.

They literally wrote it down on paper, talked about it, and decided that should be in the Constitution in order to be elected in an ostensibly secular government.

When I point out the absolute idiocy of requiring an expression of religion in order to be elected to office (which kind of goes against the prohibition of a religious test), you say, and I’m quoting here:

“Homer, you are one scared paranoid individual. Suck it up man. Not everyone has to or will believe as you do. It’s called being grown up.”

Seriously, Buzz…that is the most backassward line of thinking you’ve ever managed to spew.

The clause would also seem to preclude Buddhists (who generally do not believe in a Supreme God or creator), many Hindus (many sects do not hold that there is one “Supreme God”), Shintos or many other faiths.

It’s pretty laughable that Republicans in Texas talk about the freedom of this state and yet they have this blatently discriminatory law in the very constitution of the state.

Homer: I realize that a lot has been going on in your household. (Btw, congratulations, again!) But, does what you say make sense?

Yes, no religious test should ever be a qualification for eligibility to run for office or hold office. However, being religious is not a disqualification either. Citizens are entitled to vote for whoever they want and for any reason they want. If they want to vote for someone who they perceive to be religions, that is their right. The same goes for those wanting to elect someone who is Jewish, Muslim, non-religious or worships the aforementioned Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Voters can even cast their vote for Jesus, your accountant, merely because they like the name. Eligibility to run for office and freedom to vote for whoever one wants is not the same thing.

john75:I agree that the clause about having to believe in a Supreme Being should be struck, however, as a mentioned above, voters can still vote for whoever they want and in the event that an atheist or agnostic is elected, I doubt the the clause would be enforced.

You know…this seems like one of those issues that both sides should be able to read the text and go, “yep, that is kind of messed up”.

Nope. That is not what we have here.

Stern would like to argue semantics.
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən) — n 1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

It would certainly seem that the State of Texas is requiring the belief in a Supreme Being, which by at least some definitions (see above, and almost all others), seems to be a bit of an expression of religion. While not specifying a particular religion, it does require belief/faith in a Supreme Being.

Rather than saying, “yep, that is kind of messed up”, Stern would rather argue over whether the requirement really is a Religious Test.

Then, we get Buzz buzzing in to tell folks to grow up because not everyone is going to believe like I do, even though it is his side requiring people to believe like they do.

Does he say, “yep, that is kind of messed up”? No, no, he thinks non-believers just need to suck it up and not run for office.

Obj…I’m not sure I’m following you here, but again it is not “yep, that is kind of messed up”.

You seem to think that I’m suggesting that being religious should disqualify someone from running for office. I think every statewide elected official in Texas is Christian or Jewish, so I think folks seem pretty comfortable voting for folks who at least pretend to be religious, and no one is suggesting that religious people can’t run for office.

You then say that, “Eligibility to run for office and freedom to vote for whoever one wants is not the same thing.” which suggests some agreement that the State can/should prohibit non-believers from running for office.

I just don’t get it. How are you folks thinking this is an OK thing to require?

Homer: No I don’t feel that there should be a requirement to believe in a supreme being, however since the Texas constitution was written in 1876, the wording is reflective of the times and should be amended to remove the clause in question.

The point I was trying to convey in response to turtle73. He was saying that the young woman was an enemy of the US and US Constitution. Showing a flag, a gun and a Bible does not make one an enemy of the State!

You wrote: “So yeah…at times, these folks can cause some pretty serious threats to the US and the Constitution.” … Really, by showing a Bible in a photo? That’s absurd!

Thanks for the semantic input, but I would suggest plowing through a few dictionaries for the definition.

If you went with “organized” religion, then you might have a point.

Again, it is worth noting that would like to argue the semantics of whether or not this is a religious test, but your over-arching political philosophy, from which it must literally cause you significant pain to waiver, seems to stick you in a position of supporting lunacy rather than letting your good sense guide you to say, “yep, that is kind of messed up”.

I believe 75 already pointed out, HT, that some religions do not have a Supreme Being, and not everybody that acknowledges that a Supreme Being exists will be religious. Just another round of the left trying to find something to be offended over. That is messed up, and you should just say, “yep, that is messed up”.

Obj…our friend in the picture evidently is something of an internet celebrity, with pictures of her holding a chick-fil-a cup wearing a pro-life shirt, in front of hobby lobby. She seems to have lots of time on her hands (as do we all) to state her political views and preferences for politicians.

Holding a bible and a gun in a picture doesn’t pose a threat to the US or Constitution, but her stated political positions happily will infringe upon others’ right and privileges based upon her personal and religious beliefs.

Homer: The woman is free to hold a gun, a Bible, wave a flag, eat at Chik-fil-A, wear Duck Commander apparel or shop at Hobby Lobby. She is free to post her photos on Twitter, facebook or wherever. That does not make her an enemy of the state and in no way infringes on the rights of others.

Another young woman could be wearing a pro-choice T-shirt, sport Buddha tattoos, have Darwin critters on the back of her car, and report neighbors for recycling infractions. That does not make her an enemy of the state either.

Obj…I’m the one who is probably sleep deprived, but you seem to be the one missing some of the details in the comments.

I think I specifically wrote, “Holding a bible and a gun in a picture doesn’t pose a threat to the US or Constitution, but her stated political positions happily will infringe upon others’ right and privileges based upon her personal and religious beliefs.”

It seems I wrote the above, and then you went about gathering some straw to make a person to suggest that I (in a complete reversal of what I just said) believe that her posting such a picture makes an enemy of the state.

Your gun lovin’ friend is likely (as stated in her political opinions) to vote for folks who would prevent gay people from getting married and prohibit women the right to determine what to do about a pregnancy.

It is her selection of politicians that ultimately will infringe upon the rights and privileges of others.

You asked if I had ever heard of freedom of expression. Why yes I have, and clearly folks are free to have really poor reading comprehension as well.

Stern you either can’t read or are being facetious. The second part of the clause is as clear as day.

“…nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

Do you know what the word “provided” means above? I suggest you look at it up because despite the first part of the clause (i.e that there be no religious test), in the event that a candidate does not “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being” and it becomes known outside of a religious test, they can be “excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments.”

That means Buddahists, some Hindus, Shintos, along with non-believers or agnostics (a lack of faith can be considered a “religious sentiment”), can be “excluded from holding ofice on account of [their] religious sentiments” under this CLEARLY discriminatory law in Texas.

Turtle73 (In the original comment I was responding to) said the young woman was “an enemy of the United States and our Constitution.”

You said, “So yeah…at times, these folks can cause some pretty serious threats to the US and the Constitution.”

I’ve never seen this young woman’s twitter feed, but it seems to me that you are reading quite a bit into her photo.

Just because she is allegedly a member of the tea party and in a photo with a Bible, a flag, and a gun does not mean that, “her selection of politicians ultimately will infringe upon the rights and privileges of others.” There is quite a bit of debate over whose rights are being infringed upon. People who are religious and gun owners also believe they have rights under the Constitution..

Good luck with the sleep deprivation! Unfortunately, my kids were not good sleepers. I hope the new baby gets into a good sleep schedule soon.

But Stern (and I cannot believe you are arguing for this) requiring someone to profess a belief in a supreme being (even if the specific being is not specified) kind of exactly fits the definition of a religious test.

Of all people, I would expect you to be shouting down such a requirement.

‘You know…this seems like one of those issues that both sides should be able to read the text and go, “yep, that is kind of messed up”.’

Reasonable theory runs smack into crazy practice. Probably the only realistic way to correct this is for an aspiring atheist/ agnostic/ Buddhist/ Hindu/ Wiccan etc. candidate to file suit and take it all the way to SCOTUS. Hopefully it’s a decisive 9-0 call in favor of “yep, that is kind of messed up.” In fact the ruling could truthfully consist of just that sentence.

And what makes it even better: she doesn’t understand the comparison nor sense the irony. If only intelligence was as easy to purchase as a firearm. This picture has cemented the term, “The American Taliban”.

I prefer rational government based on logic, reason and intelligence, rather than emotion and ignorance.

Populism over time, even when it has worked for goals I may agree with, has been a recipe for disaster. Populism often leads to violence and instability. Much better to make slow progress over time.

The Founders understood this and, to their credit, pushed against such forces. This is why we generally did not see the violence, purges and political instaility so often seen after other revolutions throughout history. Compare this to what happened after the French Revolution and you will see the difference.

Tutt-tutt, Tutt. Jesus wouldn’t shoot an Owl. If there were such an entity, s/he’d know killing birds of prey is illegal.

Game warden say, “Jesus, dammit! What I tell you about killin’ birds of prey? Ya know I could take your truck and your gun, and fine the crap outta you! What in da hell you gonna do with that owl, anyway?”. And Jesus say, ” Gonna make me a gumbo”. And the game warden , with eyes wide, exclaims incredulously, “A gumbo!!! What do owl gumbo taste like, anyway???”

At the time of the American Revolution, Catholics & Protestants were killing each other most enthusiastically in Europe. Madison’s writings convey very clearly his horror at that and why he thought that church and state should not mix. Christianity seems to be a couple centuries ahead of Islam in terms of becoming civilized enough to refrain from killing so many other people over not believing the same things.

Yeah, yeah, yeah – I’ve read all that Madison stuff. And Jefferson, too. Hell, I’ve even read the Treaty of Tripoli, but ya know, it just doesn’t ring truthy to me. I’ve also read, elsewhere and hereabouts, that we are a Christian nation, founded by the devout, on exclusively Christian principles. Now that seems truthy to me!

I was thinking what being American means to each of us personally, and how it would best be represented in a photo. The young lady on the left (left photo, that is), with her weapon and Bible, may speak for many, but not for everyone, and her photo is personal and therefore rather narrow in scope, and I don’t see how a firearm fits in with the Hobby Lobby victory that she says she is celebrating (the Bible yes, but not the gun, which strikes me as superfluous here).

My own personal photo would consist of me standing in front of the American flag, alone on my property (to represent independence and personal space), holding a stack of books in one arm (to represent freedom of information), and then maybe a slide show that would show me leaving the voting booth or reporting for jury duty.

However, I am not the type to parade my politics, and I think most things are best kept private, so I don’t see this happening anytime soon, or ever.

A photo such as this could just as easily consist of a gay couple being married by the State, to represent their own personal view of what being American is. More power to them.

I was just reading that story yesterday, stupid is what stupid does, or something like that. Is that freedom Cappy? Now they are infringing with intent to pollute the air I breathe, can I stand my ground? After all they are assaulting me .

Tutt, if anything the Army has taught me that a firearm is a powerful tool that should be used only when necessary and by a trained professional. Not any Chuck Norris wannabe who classifies playing Call of Duty for 18 hours a day as “training”.

Obviously an unusual situation but the poor guy didn’t assess the situation before jumping in to confront the male shooter who had only fired a shot in the ceiling at that point. Luckily no other bystanders were shot.

I don’t know what it is with wingnuts living in perpetual fear of anything and everything around them that is different from them. Yes I’m “luring” unsuspecting political neophytes to the left and gays are “luring your children to homosexuality” yet ignoring the true pedophiles in the Catholic church and totally oblivious and buying all the cult fervor garbage from Cruz, Perry, Palin, and all the teabagger Pavlovian buzzwords that literally has them salivating at their mention. “2nd Amendment”, “abortion”, “Bengazi!” [sic],”Obamacare”, yadda, yadda, yadda…

Gosh, I guess I’m old-fashioned, or maybe just old, but I remember the days when young ladies would pose with their puppy dogs, or something else cute and harmless, although these ladies are in a way poster children for feminine empowerment — “Don’t hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself.”

F is for the Father up in heaven pure,
A for my belov’d AR-15;
S stands for my state, above the Union, sure,
C for Christ, the only God we’ve seen.
I is independence, which I will preserve,
S for socialists that I despise!
M for marrying all these thoughts, so they will serve
to shout our Tea Party ideals unto the skies!

Desp. You mentioned a weapon and a flag and a connection to fascism. I thought it hilarious that your avatar has Yosemite Sam is holding two big guns and one one of his personas is associated with the Confederate Flag.

Why not put up a picture of Yosemite Sam holding a gun with a Confederate flag in the background with the other two photos? It would be just as profound as the twitter posts – which were jokes! 🙂

objv, I’m shocked, shocked, that you’ve never scolded Sternn for having a clearly identifiable avatar, of a cartoon character put on trial for “twelve counts of first–degree murder, fourteen counts of armed theft, twenty two counts of piracy, eighteen counts of fraud, thirty seven counts of rape, and one moving violation, whose lawyer tells tells him that the best they can hope for is for him to be buried somewhere where his grave will not be defiled after he has been executed.

In fairness, although both would like to live under a government that operates under the provisions of their particular religious beliefs, the one on the right is a bit more likely to kill innocent civilians in order to try to make that happen.

The one on the left will vote to restrict the rights of others to get married and restrict the rights of women to decide what to do with a pregnancy. Then she will get pregnant in college and have an abortion, but fully believe her abortion was an unfortunately but necessary situation very much unlike those easy girls who use abortion as birth control.

I think Chris is reaching way too far with comparing the pictures, but there is no doubt that we have some seriously unfortunate conflating of religion, politics, and government in the US.

Regardless of how much Buzz likes, respects, and befriends gay folks, his god commands that he never be able to vote to allow gay people to be married.

A religion to which 75% of the country claims membership, manages to imagine oppression around every corner and attempts to write laws that allows religious over-reach into business and government.

Certainly, 75% of the country are not practicing Christians, but it just shows you how popular the group is when folks are pretending to be a part of it even when they are not.

Teaching creationism…organized prayer in school…abstinence-only sex ed…all non-violent means to the same end.

The one on the right is more likely to kill, but the odds are microscopically small it would be me of you or anyone we know. The one on the left is more likely to vote for ignoramuses who think that rape victims can’t get pregnant from the rape, or that intelligent design has the same scientific validity as evolution, or the humans can dump all the cheap they want into the air and water and nothing will happen as a consequence. So yeah, the one on the left concerns me more.

One thing of note. The girl in this photo is displaying the flag incorrectly. The flag’s stars should always should always face left when viewing the flag. I am surprise the super ‘muricans here (cappy & buzzy) did not immediately point it out. It would also help these tea baggers if they learned the proper way to display the flag before claiming they are real patriots.

FP…everything was fine in the hospital so everyone is home and making the necessary adjustments. The two 23-month olds are maybe a little less than thrilled at someone else getting attention, but there has only been one whiffle ball bounced of the baby’s head so far, so we are counting that as a victory.

Maybe you and your tea party brethren should learn flag etiquette Cappy. Most of them I see are wearing some kind of flag shirt, hat or whatever. They flag of United States of America is not to be worn.

“The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard
The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.”

Well your link to Air Force One sure showed me. Still to stubborn to admit she displayed the flag incorrectly, typical. But that is not the real point of the photo, the point is that too many on the far right support the use of their version of the Christian religion in running this nation. Their goals are no different than those that support Islamic extremists. Just because they do not have to use force of arms to obtain their goals in this country does not make them less dangerous or fanatical.

A statement made in 1936 eerily describes the tea party movement to a T:

James Waterman Wise, Jr. (1936):
If fascism comes, it will not be identified with any shirt movement, nor with an insignia, but it will probably be wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution.

No difference in the goals, Turtles? Christians here support individual liberty and rights for all, not attempting to force our religion on anybody. The Islamic extremists do want to force their beliefs on others and oppose individual liberty and rights.

Really, HT? Are they being sent to prison or stoned to death? What rights have they lost? What rights have pregnant women lost or might lose? The ability to kill innocent people they find inconvenient?

Rather than a world of black and white, there are some shades of grey.

The ability (some SC Justices would say a right) to marry the person of your choosing and the right of a woman to determine what she does with her body seem to be infringed upon by religious folks here.

Very little stoning or imprisoning here, but the absence of those things does not make it right.

Well, actually you did, HT. Just because a person is free to do something, they have the right to do it, doesn’t mean that state should be forced to support it. We have the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean the state has to publish it and distribute it.

You can wrap it up in pretty freedom bows and spend lots of time talking about your definitions of rights, privilege, and freedom, but it does not matter how you classify marriage, you believe states should be able to prohibit the recognition of inter-racial marriage.

You can look around this blog or whatever room you happen to be in right now, and no one you want to be associated with will agree with that position.

If states feel the need to provide marriage certificates to become legally wed and enjoy the privileges of married then yes they are obligated to treat everyone the same. It seems you are the one that does not understand the difference between rights/entitlements/privileges. Marriage is a right as defined by the SCOTUS. We also have the right to be treated equally under the law (US Constitution) so that is why states are violating the rights of people in their jurisdiction by denying same sex marriage. Yet curiously you have no objections to the trampling of our constitutional rights by states and religious conservatives.

Stern…my position on gay marriage is as strong as the position in Loving…you just disagree with the position.

Since gay folks do not yet have the ability to have their marriages recognized, a pretty reasonable line of argument would be to bring up the court cases and states’ rights issues around the most recent groups of people who had to fight to get their marriages recognized.

My side of the argument is pretty darn reasonable.

Your side of the argument rests on the belief that a state should have the right to prohibit the recognition of inter-racial marriage.

The folks who are going to agree with that argument are not folks you want on your side, and there is a reason for that.

File your taxes as a married couple or refuse to pay taxes on money you inherit from your not-state-recognized spouse in Tennessee, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa or others and see how long it takes before you get a visit from nice men in grey suits to talk about fines and all sorts of things.

But hey, nothing wrong with the state exercising some of its rights to restrict gay couple or inter-racial couples from having their marriage recognized.

Now you are talking about vioating state laws, and not even opposite-sex couples can do that. But if they are married in another state, the federal government has to recognize it no matter what state they move to or live in. 10th amendment.

Tsk, Tsk! Chris you have become a panderer. You wrote this for your echo chamber.

How about we post a picture of you typing on a computer next to a Taliban leader typing on his. It proves nothing and demonstrates nothing unless you are an idiot.

Actually, I am laughing as I type this. You are off the deep end my friend. I’ve seen it happen to others before. You just can’t take it. In your world the governor should be a wrestler and the senator should be a third string comedian.

Well, I kudo, you didn’t call anyone a racist. You are making progress.

IMO it’s 6 of one, 1/2 dz. of the other. Posters like Sternn who fancy himself a “superman” (small s) and that silly cat person are just one of the reasons I left the GOP. Ignorance is bliss and Texas TeaP’s are the most blissful nuts in the USA.

Why would it be bad for me? See, therein lies yours, and most TeaP’ers problems. You project your feelings of inadequacies onto other folks. Not all people in Texas are as stupid as 99% of your crowd. You folks run your mouths way too much. Better to be silent and thought a fool then to open your mouths and prove you are one.

“Better to be silent and thought a fool then to open your mouths and prove you are one.”

This coming from a person that doesn’t see any difference between U.S. troops and German troops from WWII, from a person that doesn’t see any diffeerence between the U.S. and Germany during WWII, from a person that can only attack typos … um, yeah, I think I will just leave it at that.

Hey arse, my family has the paperwork to prove they have fought for America since the Rev. War, how bout yours? Just because you favor the Nazi’s doesn’t mean we share your beliefs. I lost family in WW2 and resent hell outta your ignorant statements. However, I have learned I should not expect better of the lowbrow TeaP types.

Yes, my adoptive mom is a member of the DAR. I have American Indian blood in me, so my line predates even that. But at least I understand that U.S. troops and German troops were different during WWII, fighting for different, for opposite, things. You are the one that sees no difference, just as Lifer sees no difference.

No, I don’t favor Nazis nor socialism. That is for the leftists in this nation to support.

Cappy, what is it with you ignorant wingnuts spoiling for a fight throwing and then toss an exploding turd in the middle of the room to achieve your Machiavellian cheap thrills because you are bored with your tiresome political “intellectual” inbreeding?

Can’t find anything more productive to “stimulate” yourself with to celebrate the birth of this great country Cappy? Greatness achieved despite the dead weight anchors of your ilk willfully dragging this country down from the pinnacles of success and excellence out of pure malevolent spite?

Thank you for acknowledging my significant outsize influence to involuntarily ensnare and indoctrinate poor unsuspecting innocent victims to the left Cappy. I am Predatory Pod Lib’rul, hear me ROAR! And suck you in….

However my only platitude I can acknowledge in return Cappy is that you do a damn fine job of pulling yourself towards terminal ignorance, inanity, stupidity, and irrelevance all by your dumb self.

No Cappy, I am directing at YOU because you are the asswipe who initiated the scattershot trolling because you are a pathetic jerk that will not take ANY responsibility whatsoever for one iota of your assholeness. Always blaming someone else for your shortcomings.

The party of responsibility. Yeah, right. Grow up already and take your thumb or whatever appendage pacifier you have shoved in there out of your mouth and at least try to pretend to act like some semblance of an adult.

You know kabuzz, people like you and CaptSternn make the Democrats stronger and they’ll hold onto the White House longer because of it. Thanks for the Democratic domination! I know you love to paint yourselves a minority in the Republican Party when in fact you are the majority in the party. Your RINO hunting and litmus tests have led to so much political inbreeding in the party so it’s only a conserative party. There is no room even for Reagan nowadays and he welcomed moderates!

Cappy, what is it with you ignorant wingnuts spoiling for a fight throwing and then toss an exploding turd in the middle of the room to achieve your Machiavellian cheap thrills because you are bored with your tiresome political “intellectual” inbreeding?

Can’t find anything more productive to “stimulate” yourself with to celebrate the birth of this great country Cappy? Greatness achieved despite the dead weight anchors of your ilk willfully dragging this country down from the pinnacles of success and excellence out of pure malevolent spite?

Thank you for acknowledging my significant outsize influence to involuntarily ensnare and indoctrinate poor unsuspecting innocent victims to the left Cappy. I am Predatory Pod Lib’rul, hear me ROAR! And suck you in….

However my only platitude I can acknowledge in return Cappy is that you do a damn fine job of pulling yourself towards terminal ignorance, inanity, stupidity, and irrelevance all by your dumb self.

Well, Lifer, at least you are consistent. You consistently grasp at straws and reality consistently snubs its nose at yiou. Here we have one young lady standing in front a the U.S. Flag celebrating freedom, and another on the opposite end of the spectrum, promoting oppression, war, death and terrorism.

Seems to me that the picture on the lady holding the Koran fits in better with the left here, striving to deny religious freedom, freedom in general, to control others and micro-manage everybody else’s lives and push for more intolerance. Maybe that is why the left can’t grasp the differences of the two images?

Oddly, Stern…those of us on the left would have exactly the opposite impression and suggest that it is those on the right striving to deny religious freedom by imposing religion in the public sphere, controlling and micro-managing others’ lives, and becoming more intolerant of others.

Sternn, liberty does not mean the right to impose your religion or your prejudices upon other people.

The Hobby Lobby celebration is not about freedom. It’s a jingoistic victory dance against domestic opponents viewed as wholly immoral enemies. As such, it’s part of the noisome rhetoric tearing our nation apart rather than agreeing on and accommodating our differences.

That “young lady” isn’t celebrating freedom; she’s celebrating religious fascism and intolerance. And you’re all the way in with her, Sternn.

Quite the opposite, Owl. It was the Obama administration trying to impose its will on everybody else rather than accomodating our differences, imposing his own fascism on the nation. The court pulled it back a bit, but not far enough.

I really wonder if you and others cannot honestly tell the difference? I think you can, you just don;t want to admit it. Much like Obama saying you can keep you plan and your doctor if you like them when he and everyone else knew that was a lie. But if he and the rest of the democrats had been straight from the beginning, the PPACA would not have passed at all. Basically the attitude that it is easier to apologize after the fact than get permission ahead of the time.

Most thinking people agree that the Supreme Court’s blatant piercing of “the corporate veil” solely to indulge the religious whims of a whiny bunch of business owners is a legal hemorrhage just waiting to cause further harm. Apparently, you don’t, because it tickles your unthinking prejudices. That’s typical for you, so I won’t pursue it further here.

Like most modern Texan conservatives, you haven’t the faintest idea what “fascist” really means. Like “communist” or “socialist”, it’s just a derogatory word meaning “bad”.

Meanwhile, it’s not Obama’s fault if a private insurance company cancels someone’s policy, or changes the terms. Adults understand that sort of thing happens. Slow-witted inhabitants of double-wides who deliberately abstain from the world often are sort of clueless about modern innovations like insurance. Perhaps you should get out more.

Someday we’ll get a single-payer system, like every other major industrialized democracy on the planet. And it will still have room for supplemental insurance policies, and for those spending more money to get better or faster care. But twits like Sternn will still whine.

noun
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Obama is trying real hard to be a dictator, rule by speeches and decrees, ignore congress, legislation and most especially ignore the constitution.

Then again, you brought the word into the discussion and I am sure there is nothing you can point to the lady in the picture in front of the U.S. flag has in any way ever imposed her “fascist” belifs on you.

You are right “superman”, not much difference between you and the goose-steppers. I do however appreciate your honestly. I’ve gone back and read some of your comments, and I gotta hand it to you, you are first class….a first class nut job.

Because the images are strikingly similar. Women holding powerful weapons while holding their (different) religious texts of choice in front of a flag (or banner) representing their people. I’ve seen a number of comments about this, here and elsewhere, that assert that they are totally different. Very few of these have attempted to articulate why. While I believe they are, I would be delighted to see Sternn, Dan, or Buzz explain it to us.

No, you didn’t. You didn’t partly because you have a nonsense of a comparison between the Taliban and liberals (seeking to deny religious freedom). This is absurd. I am perfectly happy for you to practice whatever religion you want in whatever way you want. Just keep it to yourself and don’t produce BS excuses why your company should be exempt from certain laws that everyone else has to follow.

You also didn’t because you think that the woman holding the Quran (or Koran or whatever) believes that she is promoting oppression and death. To her, she is fighting for her freedom to practice her religion to her interpretation and it is the United States and our allies that are promoting war to prevent her from doing that. To her, we are the terrorists, remotely attacking villages with drones and invading with thousands of foreign troops. German soldiers didn’t think they were doing evil, either.

Before you pen some hysterical response, I don’t think that we are the terrorists here, but I recognize that those we are fighting might. When we start making the barest of attempts to understand why people behave the way they do, then we can make serious attempts to cohabit this planet without trying to constantly blow each other up. That woman is not going to greet us as liberators. Recognizing that 10 years ago in Iraq might have saved us a lot of grief.

John, you know, there really is no reasoning with the left. You act as if your are offended by being compared to the Taliban, but I have never seen you or anybody else on the left get offended when somebody like Rucas trots out the old “American Taliban” comment. Yes, you say we are the terrorists, then you try to back peddle and say that really isn;t what you are saying.

Maybe you shopuld have convinced Iraq to not invade Kuwait and start a war? Maybe you would say that we should have just tried to work with Japan and Germany, not go to war with them, after all they did not ask us to invade. No, I really don’t care if terrorists get upset with us because we fight them.

Seriously, Sternn? You cannot be this dense. “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.” Sun Tzu figured that one out 26 centuries ago.

We have chosen to ignore the reasons why Muslims in the Middle East hate us (and why they often hate each other, too) and this has cost us lots of money and lots of young men and women. Knowing one’s enemy does not mean agreeing with them, accommodating them or appeasing them. It means knowing why they are pointing a gun at you.

International relations are not as simple as in Rambo movies, yet many Americans seem to think blazing guns are the only way to solve problems.

We did not respond to the German invasion of Poland nor to the Japanese invasion of China. We did respond to German bombing of London, but it took farcical twists (the “Lend-Lease” program). We did not do anything in the Pacific until Pearl Harbor. Your comparisons of these to Kuwait are apt. Why did we push Hussein out of Kuwait when we have routinely ignored small wars elsewhere in the oil-free parts of the world?